Licenta Pe CLT

8/12/2019 Licenta Pe CLT

1/13

THE THEORETICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

COM MUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING WITH

RELEVEANCE TO LITERATURE AND THE MERITS AND

CONSTRAINTS OF THE COMMUN ICATIVE APPROACH IN

RELATION TO CLASSROOM PRACTICE .

AMY S. LEE

The Theore tical Charac teris tics o f Co!"ica ti#e La"$!a$e

Teachi"$ %CLT&

La"$!a$e Teachi"$ Metho'olo$( a"' A))roach

There are many ways of defining methodology in language teaching. A

universally accepted formulation describes that methodology is that

which l inks theory and practice in teaching a language. Theory states

what language is and how language is learned. Such theories are linked to

various design features of language instruction. These features might

include stated obectives! syllabus specifications! types of activities! roles

of teachers! learners! materials! and so forth. "esign features in turn are

linked to actual teaching and learning prac tices as observed in

environments where language teaching and learning take place! namely

the classroom. This whole comple# of elements formulates language

teaching methodology. $T.S. %ogers& '(()*

+ithin methodology there is a distinction made between methods and

approaches. Methods are held to be teaching systems with prescribed

techni,ues and pract ices! whereas approaches represent language

teaching philosophies that can be interpreted and applied in a variety of

different ways in the classroom.

The Li"$!istic *ar$o"

Maor influences on how a language is taught and learnt have often come

from work in linguistics. Language teachers have long looked for guidance

from linguists on how to teach languages and l inguistics theories areoften reflected in practices of the language teaching classroom.

Many theories have been evolved in the his tory of the learning and

teaching of a foreign language. These theories! usually influenced by

developments in the f ields of l inguistics and psychology! have inspired

many approaches to the teaching of foreign languages. The study of

these theories and how they influence language teaching methodology is

called applied linguistics.

-ommunicative Language Teaching began in ritain in the )/0(s as areplacement to the earl ier st ructural method! Situational Language

Teaching. This came partly in response to -homsky1s cri ticism of

1


2/13

structura l theories of language and partly based on the theories of

functional linguistics 2irth and 3alliday! American sociolinguists 3ymes!

4umpers and Labov and the writings of Austin and Searle on speech acts.

-homsky challenged previous assumptions about language structure and

language learning methodologies of the 4rammar Translation Method

$the language is graphed* and the Audiolingual Approach $habit formationas a mode of learning*. 3e took the position that language is creative and

ruled governed. 3e believed that there was a set of rules and instructions

governing the language system! which if fol lowed rigidly would produce

an infinite number of gram ma ticall y correct sentences. This

transformational 4enerat ive 4rammar! began as a study of syntact ic

structures in linguistics! gradually became an elaborate scheme trying to

embrace the whole of linguistic analysis. 3owever! most of these analyses

were done wi thout reference to meaning . Sentences which were

genera ted from these 5t ree6s truc tu re 1 paradigms could easily be

senseless.

2or e#ample&

S

78 98 78

The girl smokes a

chair

-homsky1s linguistic theory stressed that language had two components&

competence and performance. -ompetence refers to knowledge of the

rules of grammar and the language structure while performance refers to

how the rules are used in an actual sentence. -homsky focused his

linguistic theory on the knowledge and abili ty to produce grammatically

correct sentences.

:n the other hand! 3ymes held a view that -homsky1s view is steri le.Linguist ic theory needed to be incorporated into a broader view of

communication and culture.

The notion is intended to replace 7oam -homsky;s dicho tomy of

competence and performance. Speakers draw on their competence in

putting together grammatical sentences! but not all such sentences can

be used in the same circumstances& -lose the window and +ould you

mind closing the window! please< are both grammatical! but they differ in

their appropriateness for use in particular situations. Speakers use theircommunicative competence to choose what to say! as well as how and

when to say it. 3e made the point that $)/=/& 8>*&

2


3/13

5There are rules of use! wi thout which the rules of

grammar would be useless1.

3ymes argues that linguists of the transformational school have been so

concerned with the 5possible1 structure alone that l it t le was learnt about

how language is used as a mean of communication. 3e pointed out $)/=/&

8.)>*&5+e have then to account for the fact that a normal

child ac,uires knowledge of a sentence! not only as

grammatical! but also appropriate. 3e or she ac,uires

competence as to when to speak! when not! and as to

what to talk about! with whom! when! where! in what

manner.1

3ymes further stated that there were four aspects of this communicative

competence $)/=/& 8.)/*&

5whether something is formally possible?

whether something is feasible?

whether something is appropriate?

whether something is in fact done.1

These features form integral part of the interaction in language. 3ymes1s

view had been e#tremely influential in steering development in secondary

language theory and pract ice. 3e e#empli fied a move away from the

study of language purely as an analytical system towards the study of

language as social communication and appropriateness. This shift has

provided the theoretical plan round to communicative language teaching.

F!"ctio"s of La"$!a$e

Another linguistic theory of communication supporting -LT is 3alliday1s

functional account of language use. 3e described seven basic functions

for children learning their first language.

%ichards @ %ogers classified them as $)/0& 8=(6=)*&

5 the inst rumental func tion & using language to getthings?

the regulatory function& using language to control the

behaviour of others?

the interact ional funct ion& using language to create

interaction with others?

the personal function& using language to e#press

personal feelings and meanings?

the heuristic funct ion& using language to learn anddiscover?

3


4/13

the imaginat ive funct ion& using language to create a

world of the imagination?

the representa tional funct ion& using language to

communicate the information1

3alliday1s language functions were adopted by the proponents of -LT as

denoting the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions. 3isdogmas have had a strong influence on the development of functional

syllabuses.

Another impel ling force for a different language pedagogy came from the

changing of education reali ties in Europe. The social and poli tica l

pressures on language teaching promoted a more semantic! more social

and more communicative approach.

+ilkins $)/=0* outlined a ta#onomy of concepts for this kind of syllabus.

3is semantic classification was based on three categories& semantico6

grammatical! modal! meaning and communicative functions.

The -ouncil of Europe incorporated his semantic communicati ve analysis

into a 5threshold level1 communicative language syllabus. Bt specif ied

situations! learners1 roles! settings! functions and notions $van Ek& )/=>*.

These speci ficat ions have had a strong influence on the design of

communicative language programmes and the ideas were taken up in a

number of te#t books.

Co!"icati#e Val!e of La"$!a$e

:ther linguists have addressed the communicative and social potentials

of language.

+iddowson $)/=* defined a set of contrasting concepts which distinguish

between language as a formal system and language use as

communicative values in discourse. 3e argued that language teaching

should move away from an emphasis on the 5usage1 of sentences in

isolat ion to a concern for the 5use1 of sentence in conte#t. "iscourse

analysis should e#amine the use of sentences and makes a distinctionbetween 5cohesion1 and 5coherence1. The former involves the employment

of linguistic features in establishing the links in a piece of discourse! while

the latter is concerned with the l inks which are established through the

meaning and the content of the message.

3is theory forms the basic concept of -LT which characterises the

teaching of language in conte#tual situations and meaningful interaction.

4


5/13

I"teracti#e Nat!re of Co!"icati#e Co)ete"ce

-anale and Swain $)/(* adopted the term communicative competence

to refer to the relationship and interact ion between grammatical and

sociolinguistic competence.

-anale and Swain advocated $)/(& 8.0*&5Bf a communicative approach to second language

teaching is adopted! then principles of syllabus design

must integrate of both grammatical and sociolinguistic

competence.1

They iden ti fied four components of communica tive competence&

grammatical! sociolinguistic! discourse and strategic and they regarded

them as $)/(& 8.'(*&

5a syn thesis of knowledge of basic grammat ica l

principles! knowledge of how a language is used in

social conte#t to perform communicative functions and

knowledge of how ut te rance and communica tive

functions can be combined according to discourse.1

They also viewed such theories as&

5an integrative in that they focus on speaking! listening!

writ ing and reading rather than on a subset of these

skill areas.1

-anale and Swain took the theory a big step closer to the classroom and

the teaching of language as a social tool.

The Characteristics of CLT

The fundamental principle of -LT is to enable learners to understand and

use the target language for communicat ion. Two basic assumptions

under lying this approach to language learning are that the core of

language learning is the development of communicative competence and

that the starting point for language learning is not grammatical rules but

conte#t! function! meaning and the appropriate use of the language.%ichards and %ogers identify the distinct characteristics of communicati ve

language teaching as $)/0& 8.=)*&

5Language is a system for the e#pression of meaning.

The primary function of language is for interaction and

communication function of language.

The structure of language reflects its functional and

communicative uses.

The primary uni ts of language are not merely itsgrammatical and structural features! but categories of

5


6/13

functional and communicative meaning as e#emplified

in discourse.1

This approach calls for radically different ideas of language teaching. :ne

maor shi ft is that language learning has become student6centred.

Lessons are planned in such a way that al l the students can engage in

interactive activities.Authentic and meaningful communica tion should be goal of classroom act

ivies. 4roup work and pair work are employed to promote communication

and getting the meaning across. Authentic materials! such as newspaper

articles! radio programmes! video6 tapes! train6timetables etc.! are used to

bring the real world elements into the classroom. Situations are simulated

but interaction and task complete within real6time are genuine. %ole6plays

centre on communicative functions.

2luency is an important dimension of communication. The obective of

language learning is to communicate? at tempts to communicate are

encouraged at the very beginning. Errors are unavoidable but accuracy is

udged in conte#t rathe r in structures and forms. Errors which are

concerned with structures are not corrected openly and simultaneously

because the main concern is fluency and gett ing meaning through

communicat ion. Learning is a process of creative construct ion and

involves errors.

The Mer i ts a"' Co"strai"ts of the Co!"icat i#e A))roach i"

Relatio" to Classroo Practice

Wa(s of Cha"$es

Cnder the inf luence of -LT! language teaching has become more

sophisticated. The obectives have a broader dimension. Syllabus design

takes into the consideration of not only the linguistic and literary aspects

of language but also the human and social areas. Language teachers

have to be able to provide students with a better and more complete

picture of what foreign language learning is about.

Refi"ee"t of the +Fo!r S,ills-

The traditional emphasis on 5writing1 was a concern with written form with

li tt le attent ion to discourse structure. 5Listening1 was concerned with

minimal pairs or comprehension of isolated sentences. Students practised

thei r speaking skills by imitat ing st ress patterns! intonat ions and

pronunciat ion of discrete utterances. -LT has brought about a new

classification of the 5four skills1. Bt relates them more closely to function!purpose and conte#t. Syllabus design revolved round the completion of

the four skills of writing! reading! listening and speaking.

6


7/13

2or e#ample! we may read about a flower show in the newspaper

$reading*. Then we telephone to find out the deta ils $listen ing and

speaking*! f il l in the booking form for the admission tickets and find our

way on the map $reading and writing*. After that we talk about it with our

friends! suggest them to go $l istening and speaking*. May be we write a

letter to invite someone to go together $writing*.Activ ities like these re,uire an integration of the four skills. 7o single ski ll

can really develop independently from the others.

Refi"ee"t of Metho'olo$(

Bn methodology! the change has been dramat ic. The boring and

mechanical types of structural dri lls have virtually been replaced by a

variety of engaging activities.

Language learning may be seen as a process which grows out of the

interaction between learners! teachers! te#ts and activities.

The communicative classroom serves as an 5arena1 of interactions of

language tasks. Teachers are organisers of all these activities and as a

result greater demands of work have made on them $reen @ -andlin&

)/(*.

Dea"'s Ma'e o" the Teacher

reen @ -andlin $)/(* descr ibed -LT teacher as a faci li ta tor? an

interdependent participant and a researcher and learner

Medgyes wrote $)/0& 8.)(=*&

5The communicative classroom re,uires a teacher of

e#traordinary abilities& a multi6 dimensional! high6 tech!

+iDard6of :D like superperson 6 yet of flesh and blood.1

Bn a -LT classroom! teachers keep a low profile in their functions! rela#

their control of the class! resort to gentle correction! organise activit ies

and stand aside! prompt wi th discre tion and offer help only when

re,uested. 3owever! this withdrawal should not mean rel in,uishingcontrol over the class! and i t re,uires the teacher an e#tremely high

degree of professional sophistication. They need very much more energy

and adaptability $7unan& )/=*.

+ho likes changes< The teacher was only provider of knowledge! the

model for correct forms! and the controller of the class. The te#tbooks

contained sets of lessons to be learnt! and all classroom interaction was

teacher and te#tbook dominated. Lessons tended to look similar to each

other. 7evertheless! this goal has been set to develop the learner1scommunicative competence. Learners want to be able to use the foreign

language for personal need fulfilment. Teachers must change not only in

7


8/13

the e#tra skills re,uired! but in the teacher1s whole attitude to language!

language learning and the role of the teacher. There are sti ll some who

are slow to adapt to these changes! and some who are even resistant to

do it. To overcome this phenomenon teachers need to come to terms with

this change by trying analyse themselves with these ,uestions.

5+ho likes changes*! 5Learning 3ow to Mean& E#ploration s in the "evelopment of

Language1 in %ichards! H.-. @ %ogers! T.S. $)/0* Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching ! -C8! -ambridge.

3arrison! A. $)//)*! 5Language Assessment as Theatre& Ten Years of -ommunicative

Testing1! in Language Testing in the )//(s ! $)//)*! Modern English 8ublications!

London.

3olden! S. $)/==*! 5:de to the Acronym1 in rumfit! -. H.! $)/(* 8roblems and 8rinciples

in English Teaching ! 8ergamon Bnstitute of English! :#ford.

3ughes! A. $)//* Testing for Language Teachers ! -C8! -ambridge.

3ymes! ". $)/=)*! 5:n -ommunicative -ompetence 1in rumfit! -.H. and Hohnson! I

$)/=/* The -ommunica tive Approach to language Teaching ! :C8! :#ford! 8.>68.'=.

Hohnson! I. $)/'*! -ommunicative Syl labus "esign and Methodology ! 8ergamon!

:#ford.

Medgyes! 8. $)/0* 5Kueries from a -ommunicative Teacher1 ELT Hournal J(G' :C8!

8.)(=68.))'.

7unan! ". $)/=* 5-ommunicative Teaching& Making it work1 ELT Hournal J)G'! :C8!

8)F068.)J>.

8orter! " $)//)*! 5Affective 2actors in Language Teaching1 in Language Testing in the

)//(s! $)//)*! Modern English 8ublications! London.

%ichards! H.-. $)/F* 5-ommun icati ve 7eeds in 2oreign Language Learning1 ELT Hournal

F=G' :C8! 8.)))68.))/.

%ichards! H.-. @ %ogers! T.S. $)/0* Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching !

-C8! -ambridge .

Seedhouse! 8. $)//0*! 5-lassroom Bnteraction& 8ossibil it ies and Bmpossibil it ies1 ELTHournal >(G)! :C8! 8.)068.'F.

12


13/13

9an Ek! H. A. $)/=0*! The Threshold for Modern Language Learning in Schools ! Longmans!

London.

+iddowson! 3.4. $)/=* Teaching Language as -ommunicat ion ! :C8! :#ford.

+ilkins! ".A. $)/=0*! 7otional Syllabuses ! :C8! :#ford.

%ogers! T.S. $'(()*! 5Language Teaching Methodology1! E%B- "igest ! :n6Line. Available&

http&GGwww.cal.orgGericclGdigestGrodgers.html .8acurari! :. $)//>*! 5+ho likes change< Cnderstanding Teachers1 %esistance to 8air

+ork1! :n6Line. Available&

http&GGettc.uwb.eduplGstronyGpttGdec/>GJGJ)parcura.html

9an Lier! L. $)/* 5The -lassroom and the Language Learner 1 Longman! 7ew York

%yan! S..! 5:vercoming -ommon 8roblems %elated to -ommunicative Methodology1!

:n6Line http&GGitesl.orgGTechni,uesG%yan6-ommunicative.html

13
http://www.cal.org/ericcl/digest/rodgers.htmlhttp://ettc.uwb.edupl/strony/ptt/dec95/4/41parcura.htmlhttp://www.cal.org/ericcl/digest/rodgers.htmlhttp://ettc.uwb.edupl/strony/ptt/dec95/4/41parcura.html

Licenta Pe CLT

Documents

Transcript of Licenta Pe CLT